Key Arguments

• Partial harms provoke revenge; overwhelming harms remove capacity for retaliation.
• This maxim supports the choice of colonies (limited, decisive dispossession) over widespread, continuous offenses from troops.

Source Quotes

In few words, these colonies cost less than soldiers, are more faithful, and give less offence, while those who are offended, being, as I have said, poor and dispersed, cannot hurt. And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals.

And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals. But if instead of colonies you send troops, the cost is vastly greater, and the whole revenues of the country are spent in guarding it; so that the gain becomes a loss, and much deeper offence is given; since in shifting the quarters of your soldiers from place to place the whole country suffers hardship, which as all feel, all are made enemies; and enemies who remaining, although vanquished, in their own homes, have power to hurt.

Key Concepts

• men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver.
• the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals.

Context

General principle inserted within the discussion of colonies versus troops.